Morality plays an essential role in the law and at some points it can prove to be essential to subject legal decisions to moral evaluations. The most basic laws in society that date back from the biblical Ten Commandants such as Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not steal are certainly based on morals. Without considering morals, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a basic set of rules and regulations by which to govern a society. Historically, moral laws have done a better job of keeping people in check than have amoral laws. It would be desirable to include morality when trying to describe the operation of legal institutions because certain laws govern situations which carry some moral weight, likewise, certain crimes have always been deemed crimes because their basis lies in morality or a lack there of. Certainly, legal institutions cannot ignore morals but they also cannot give them absolute control over the law either. At times, accommodations are not possible when considering conflicts between moral and legal obligations because certain laws are amoral, meaning that they are completely disassociated with any sort of morals or ethical code. Amoral laws do not oppose the idea of morals but they do not consider their existence either. The previously mentioned accommodations cannot exist when it comes to a primitive law such as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”; in today’s society it might be morally right but it is still illegal, while in ancient societies it was not only legal, but encouraged, most likely as a means of being a deterrent for crimes of personal injury.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not all of our laws are based on morality. I believe that only SOME of our laws are completely and entirely based on morality.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for legal decisions; not all of them are based on morality or even can be depending on the situation and the law in question.
I agree with what you're saying up until the "eye for an eye" part. I think that we need to adopt this concept more in modern law making. It is not fair for a person to be sentenced to life in prison for possessing a small amount of an illegal drug. Even though the person did break the law and definitely deserves to be punished, they should receive a punishment that fits the crime. "An eye for an eye."
ReplyDeleteI think your belief that morals are essential to law is untrue. The existence of morality in some laws does not equate to them being necessary for the creation of that law. This supposition begins with morals and goes forward, but the real question is why are these morals in the first place? Logic should derive the existence of morals, and this should be the beginning point of the creation of laws. The assignment of the term "moral" is in my opinion an unnecessary step and should never be used as justification.
ReplyDelete